Abstract
The intermediary plays an important role in accessing e-Government services on behalf of the citizens, introducing a concept of indirect adoption. In e-Government research, which is a phenomenon for more than the last two decades, there are no apparent theoretical mechanisms to understand indirect adoption in the Indian context. Also, the existing indirect adoption theories are narrow in scope. This study investigates the factors influencing indirect adoption (i.e., adoption via intermediaries) of e-Government services. Grounded theory approach using forty-seven semi-structured interviews is used to propose a theoretical model for indirect e-Government adoption. The proposed model has thirteen factors, out of which access convenience to intermediary, intermediaries’ service charge, risk-averse characteristics, and value-added services are novel factors in the context of e-Government adoption. The study also found some variables moderating the relationship between some of these factors and indirect adoption. While busy lifestyle, cost rationality, resistant to change, and technophobia moderate the relation between intermediaries’ service charge and indirect adoption intention, voluntary usage context was identified to moderate the relationship between lack of resources, lack of computer self-efficacy, perceived difficulty-to-use, lack of multilingual option and indirect adoption intention. The study advances the understanding of indirect e-Government adoption. The findings have potential implications for public administrators and policymakers. As the objective of qualitative research is to obtain an in-depth understanding rather than generalizations, this study draws reasonable conclusion from the small sample. However, further study is required to test the model and for generalizations.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Agarwal R, Prasad J (1997) The role of innovation characteristics and perceived voluntariness in the acceptance of information technologies. Decis Sci 28(3):557–582. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5915.1997.tb01322.x
Ahmad KM, Campbell J (2015) Citizen perceptions of e-Government in the Kurdistan Region of Iraq. Australas J Inf Syst 19:1–29
Ahmad MO, Markkula J, Oivo M (2013) Factors affecting e-Government adoption in Pakistan: a citizen ’ s perspective. Transform Gov People Process Policy 7(2):225–239. https://doi.org/10.1108/17506161311325378
Ahmed A (2007) Open access towards bridging the digital divide–policies and strategies for developing countries. Inf Technol Dev 13(4):337–361
Ajzen I (1985) From intentions to actions: a theory of planned behavior. Action control. Springer, Berlin, pp 11–39
Al-Sobhi F, Weerakkody V (2010) The role of intermediaries in facilitating e-Government diffusion in Saudi Arabia. In: European and Mediterranean conference on information systems
Al-Sobhi F, Vishanth W, Mustafa Kamal M (2010a) An exploratory study on the role of intermediaries in delivering public services in Madinah City Case of Saudi Arabia. Transform Gov People Process Policy 4(1):14–36. https://doi.org/10.1108/17506161011028786
Al-Sobhi F, Weerakkody V, Al-Busaidy M (2010b) The roles of intermediaries in the diffusion and adoption of e-Government services. In: AMCIS 2010 proceedings, 385. papers3://publication/uuid/84C8E63C-86D8-4044-8C3E-C13EB8F7534F
Al-Sobhi F, Weerakkody V, El-Haddadeh R (2011) The relative importance of intermediaries in eGovernment adoption: a study of Saudi Arabia. In: TGov workshop 2011, vol 11, pp 1–15
Al-Sobhi F, Weerakkody V, El-Haddadeh R (2012) Building trust in e-Government adoption through an intermediary channel. Int J Electron Gov Res 8(2):91–106. https://doi.org/10.4018/jegr.2012040105
Alsobhi F, Kamal M, Weerakkody V (2009) Current state of E-services in Saudi Arabia: the case of intermediaries in facilitating government services in Madinah City. In: European and Mediterranean conference on information systems 2009 (EMCIS2009)
Anthony LM, Clarke MC, Anderson SJ (2000) Technophobia and personality subtypes in a sample of South African university students. Comput Hum Behav 16(1):31–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0747-5632(99)00050-3
Averweg UR, Greyling EH (2008). Survey of information and communication technologies and information needs in the eThekwini Municipality in South Africa. Issues in Information and Media Literacy, 227–256.
Azmi AAC, Kamarulzaman Y, Hamid NHA (2012) Perceived risk and the adoption of tax e-filing. World Appl Sci J 20(4):532–539. https://doi.org/10.5829/idosi.wasj.2012.20.04.2403
Bailey JP, Bakos Y (1997) An exploratory study of the emerging role of electronic intermediaries of electronic intermediaries. Int J Electron Commer 1(3):7–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/10864415.1997.11518287
Bélanger F, Carter L (2008) Trust and risk in e-Government adoption. Strateg Inf Syst 17:165–176. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsis.2007.12.002
Broady-Preston J, Swain W (2012) What business are we in? Value added services, core business and national library performance. Perform Meas Metr 13(2):107–120. https://doi.org/10.1108/JHOM-09-2016-0165
Carter L, Belanger F (2004) Citizen adoption of electronic government initiatives. In: Proceedings of the 37th annual Hawaii international conference on Ystem sciences, 2004. IEEE
Carter L, Belanger F (2005) The utilization of e-Government services: citizen trust innovation and acceptance factors. Inf Syst J 15(1):5–25
Carter L, Weerakkody V (2008) e-Government adoption: a cultural comparison. Inf Syst Front 10(4):473–482. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-008-9103-6
Carter L, Weerakkody V, Phillips B, Dwivedi YK (2016) Citizen adoption of e-Government services: exploring citizen perceptions of online services in the United States and United Kingdom. Inf Syst Manag 33(2):124–140. https://doi.org/10.1080/10580530.2016.1155948
Chircu AM, Kauffman RJ (1999) Strategies for internet middlemen in the intermediation/disintermediation/reintermediation cycle. Electron Mark 9(1/2):109–117. https://doi.org/10.1080/101967899359337
Chopra S, Rajan P (2016) Modeling intermediary satisfaction with mandatory adoption of e-Government. Inf Technol Int Dev 12(1):15–34
Churchil GA Jr (1979) A paradigm for developing better measures of marketing constructs. J Mark Res 16(1):64–73. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004
Collier JE, Bienstock CC (2006) Measuring service quality in E-retailing. J Serv Res 8(3):260–275. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670505278867
Colquitt JA, Zapata-phelan CP (2007) Trends in theory building and theory testing: five-decade study of the academy of management journal. Acad Manag J 50(6):1281–1303
Compeau DR, Higgins CA (1995) Computer self-efficacy: development of a measure and initial test. MIS Q 19(2):189–211
Creswell JW, Poth CN (2017) Qualitative inquiry and research design: choosing among five approaches. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks
Datta P, Chatterjee S (2008) The economics and psychology of consumer trust in intermediaries in electronic markets: the EM-Trust Framework. Eur J Inf Syst 17(1):12–28
Davis FD (1989) Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Q 13(3):319–340
De Chernatony L, Harris F, Riley DFO (2000) Added value: its nature, roles and sustainability. Eur J Mark 34(1/2):39–56. https://doi.org/10.1108/03090560010306197
Dombrowski L, Voida A, Hayes GR, Mazmanian M (2012) The labor practices of service mediation: a study of the work practices of food assistance outreach. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, 2012, pp 1977–1986.https://doi.org/10.1145/2207676.2208342
Dombrowski L, Hayes GR, Mazmanian M, Voida A (2014) e-Government intermediaries and the challenges of access and trust. ACM Trans Comput-Hum Interact 21(2):1–22. https://doi.org/10.1145/2559985
Edison SW, Geissler GL (2003) Measuring attitudes towards general technology: antecedents, hypotheses and scale development. J Target Meas Anal Mark 12(2):137–156. https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.jt.5740104
Eggert A (2006) Intangibility and perceived risk in online environments. J Mark Manag 22(5–6):553–572. https://doi.org/10.1362/026725706777978668
Evans D, Yen DC (2006) e-Government: evolving relationship of citizens and government, domestic, and international development. Gov Inf Q 23(2):207–235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2005.11.004
Fishbein M, Ajzen I (1975) Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: an introduction to theory and research. Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Boston
Fulk J, Boyd B (1991) Emerging theories of communication in organizations. J Manag 17(2):407–446. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639101700207
Fulk J, Steinfield CW, Schmitz J, Power JG (1987) A social informationprocessing model of media use in organizations. Commun Res 14(5):529–552
Gellman R (1996) Disintermediation and the internet. Gov Inf Q 13(1):1–8
Gil-Garcia JR, Martinez-Moyano IJ (2007) Understanding the evolution of e-Government: the influence of systems of rules on public sector dynamics. Gov Inf Q 24(2):266–290. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2006.04.005
Goulding C (2005) Grounded theory, ethnography and phenomenology. Eur J Mark 39(3/4):294–308. https://doi.org/10.1108/03090560510581782
Heeks R (2002) Information systems and developing countries: failure, success, and local improvisations. Inf Soc 18(2):101–112. https://doi.org/10.1080/01972240290075039
Heidari A, Jafari Navimipour N (2022) Service discovery mechanisms in cloud computing: a comprehensive and systematic literature review. Kybernetes 51(3):952–981. https://doi.org/10.1108/K-12-2020-0909
Heidari A, Navimipour NJ (2021) A new SLA-aware Method for discovering the cloud services using an improved nature-inspired optimization algorithm. PeerJ Comput Sci 7(Vm):1–21. https://doi.org/10.7717/PEERJ-CS.539
Heidari A, Jabraeil Jamali MA, Jafari Navimipour N, Akbarpour S (2020) Internet of Things offloading: ongoing issues, opportunities, and future challenges. Int J Commun Syst 33(14):1–26. https://doi.org/10.1002/dac.4474
Heidari A, Jafari Navimipour N, Unal M, Toumaj S (2022) The COVID-19 epidemic analysis and diagnosis using deep learning: a systematic literature review and future directions. Comput Biol Med 141(December 2021):105141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compbiomed.2021.105141
Hindu T (2020) NSO report shows stark digital divide affects education. https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/nso-report-shows-stark-digital-divide-affects-education/article32554222.ece
Howells J (2006) Intermediation and the role of intermediaries in innovation. Res Policy 35(5):715–728. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2006.03.005
Irani Z, Dwivedi Y, Williams M (2009) Understanding consumer adoption of broadband: an extension of the technology acceptance model. J Oper Res Soc 60(10):1322–1334. https://doi.org/10.1057/jors.2008.100
Jamali MJ, Bahrami B, Heidari A, Heidari A, Allahverdizadeh P, Norouzi F (2019) Towards the Internet of Things: architectures, security, and applications. Springer, Berlin
Janssen M, Klievink B (2009) The role of intermediaries in multi-channel service delivery strategies. Int J Electron Gov Res (IJEGR) 5(3):36–46
Kim M, Kim JH, Lennon SJ (2006) Online service attributes available on apparel retail web sites: an E-S-QUAL approach. Manag Serv Qual 16(1):51–77. https://doi.org/10.1108/09604520610639964
Kumar R, Sachan A (2017) The role of intermediaries in e-Government adoption in India: bridging the digital divide. In: 20th National conference on E-governance, pp 48–52
Kumar R, Sachan A, Mukherjee A (2018a) Direct vs. indirect e-Government adoption: an exploratory study. Digit Policy Regul Gov 20(2):149–162
Kumar R, Sachan A, Mukherjee A, Kumar R (2018b) Factors influencing e-Government adoption in India: a qualitative approach. Digit Policy Regul Gov. https://doi.org/10.1108/DPRG-02-2018-0007
Kumar R, Kumar R, Sachan A, Gupta P (2020) An examination of the e-Government service value chain. Inform Technol People 34:889–911. https://doi.org/10.1108/ITP-09-2018-0438
Li Y, Shang H (2020) Service quality, perceived value, and citizens’ continuous-use intention regarding e-Government: empirical evidence from China. Inf Manag 53(3):103197. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.im.2019.103197
Limayem M, Hirt SG, Cheung CMK (2007) How habit limits the predictive power of intention: the case of information systems continuance 1. MIS Q 31(4):705–737
Mahadeo JD (2009) Towards an understanding of the factors influencing the acceptance and diffusion of e-Government service. In: Proceedings of the European conference on e-Government, ECEG, vol 7, no 4, pp 451–460
Malodia S, Dhir A, Mishra M, Bhatti ZA (2021) Future of e-Government: an integrated conceptual framework. Technol Forecast Soc Change 173(December 2020):121102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2021.121102
Malone TW, Yates J, Benjamin RI (1987) Electronic markets and electronic hierarchies. Commun ACM 30(6):484–497. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118290743/wbiedcs158
Meuter ML, Ostrom AL, Bitner MJ, Roundtree R (2003) The influence of technology anxiety on consumer use and experiences with self-service technologies. J Bus Res 56(11):899–906. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0148-2963(01)00276-4
Moore GC, Benbasat I (1991) Development of an instrument to measure the perceptions of adopting an information technology innovation. Inf Syst Res 2(3):192–222
Murru ME (2003) e-Government: from real to virtual democracy. Boston University, Brussels
Mustaf A, Ibrahim O, Mohammed F (2020) e-Government adoption: a systematic review in the context of developing nations. Int J Innov 8(1):59–76. https://doi.org/10.5585/iji.v8i1.16479
Musteen M (2016) Behavioral factors in offshoring decisions: a qualitative analysis. J Bus Res 69(9):3439–3446. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2016.01.042
Nussbaum M (1988) Nature, function, and capability: Aristotle on political distribution. Oxf Stud Anc Philos I:145–184
Parasuraman A, Zeithaml VA, Malhotra A (2005) E-S-QUAL: a multiple-item scale for assessing electronic service quality. J Serv Res 7(Feb.):1–21. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670504271156
Parent M, Vandebeek CA, Gemino AC (2005) Building citizen trust through e-Government. Gov Inf Q 22(4):720–736. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2005.10.001
Pavlou PA, Fygenson M (2006) Understanding and predicting electronic commerce adoption: an extension of the theory of planned behavior. MIS Q 30(1):115–143
Pavlou PA, Gefen D (2004) Building effective online marketplaces with institution-based trust. Inf Syst Res 15(1):37–59. https://doi.org/10.1287/isre
Phang CW, Sutanto J, Li Y, Kankanhalli A (2005) Senior citizens’ adoption of e-Government: In quest of the antecedents of perceived usefulness. In: Proceedings of the 38th Hawaii international conference on system sciences, p 5
Rajalekshmi KG (2007) E-governance services through telecenters: the role of human intermediary and issues of trust. Inf Technol Int Dev 4(1):19–35. https://doi.org/10.1162/itid.2007.4.1.19
Rana NP, Dwivedi YK, Williams MD (2015) A meta-analysis of existing research on citizen adoption of e-Government. Inf Syst Front 17(3):547–563. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-013-9431-z
Rana NP, Dwivedi YK, Williams MD, Weerakkody V (2016) Adoption of online public grievance redressal system in India: toward developing a unified view. Comput Hum Behav 59:265–282. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.02.019
Rehman M, Esichaikul V, Kamal M (2012) Factors influencing e-Government adoption in Pakistan. Transform Gov People Process Policy 6(3):258–282. https://doi.org/10.1108/17506161211251263
Rogers EM (1995) Diffusion of innovations, 4th edn. The Free Press, Los Angeles
Sarkar M, Butler B (1998) Cybermediaries in Electronic Marketspace: Toward Theory Building. J Bus Res 41(3):215–221
Schamber L (2000) Time-line interviews and inductive content analysis: their effectiveness for exploring cognitive behaviors. J Am Soc Inf Sci 51(8):734–744. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(2000)51:8%3c734::AID-ASI60%3e3.0.CO;2-3
Sein MK (2011) The “I” between G and C: e-Government intermediaries in developing countries. Electron J Inf Syst Dev Ctries 48(1):1–14. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1681-4835.2011.tb00338.x
Sein MK, Furuholt B (2012) Intermediaries: bridges across the digital divide. Inf Technol Dev 18(4):332–344. https://doi.org/10.1080/02681102.2012.667754
Shareef MA, Kumar U, Kumar V, Dwivedi YK (2009) Identifying critical factors for adoption of e-Government. Electron Gov Int J 6(1):70–96
Shareef MA, Kumar V, Kumar U, Dwivedi YK (2011) e-Government adoption model (GAM): differing service maturity levels. Gov Inf Q 28(1):17–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2010.05.006
Sharma R, Mishra R (2015) Adoption of Common Service Centre with presence of intermediary for delivery of e-Government services: a conceptual framework. In: Innovation and the Public Sector, p 261
Sharma R, Mishra R (2017) Investigating the role of intermediaries in adoption of public access outlets for delivery of e-Government services in developing countries: an empirical study. Gov Inf Q 34(4):658–679. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2017.10.001
Sharma R, Mishra R, Mishra A (2021a) Determinants of satisfaction among social entrepreneurs in e-Government services. Int J Inf Manag 60(July):102386. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2021.102386
Sharma SK, Metri B, Dwivedi YK, Rana NP (2021b) Challenges common service centers (CSCs) face in delivering e-Government services in rural India. Gov Inf Q 38(2):101573. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2021.101573
Singh Kalsi N, Kiran R (2013) e-Governance success factors. Int J Public Sect Manag 26(4):320–336. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPSM-08-2011-0101
Statista 2022 (2022) Internet penetration rate in India from 2007 to 2021. https://www.statista.com/statistics/792074/india-internet-penetration-rate/#:~:text=Internet penetration rate in India went up to nearly around,access to internet that year
Tan M, Teo TSH (2000) Factors influencing the adoption of internet banking. J Assoc Inf Syst 1(1):1–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.elerap.2008.11.006
Technophobia (n.d.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technophobia. Accessed 13 April 2017
Thompson N, Mullins A, Chongsutakawewong T (2020) Does high e-Government adoption assure stronger security? Results from a cross-country analysis of Australia and Thailand. Gov Inf Q 37(1):101408. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2019.101408
Value-added service (n.d.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value-added_service. Accessed 16 March 2017
Venkatesh V, Davis FD (2000) A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: four longitudinal field studies. Manag Sci 46(1):186–204. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.46.2.186.11926
Venkatesh V, Morris MG, Davis GB, Davis FD (2003) User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view. MIS Q 27(3):425–478
Venkatesh V, Sykes TA, Venkatraman S (2014) Understanding e-Government portal use in rural India: role of demographic and personality characteristics. Inf Syst J 24(3):249–269. https://doi.org/10.1111/isj.12008
Viswanath V, Brown SA (2001) A longitudinal investigation of personal computers in homes: adoption determinants and emerging challenges. Manag Inf Syst 25(1):71–102
Wangpipatwong S, Chutimaskul W, Papasratorn B (2008) Understanding citizen’ s continuance intention to use e-Government website: a composite view of technology acceptance model and computer self-efficacy. Electron J E-Gov 6(1):55–64
Warkentin M, Gefen D, Pavlou PA, Rose GM (2002) Encouraging citizen adoption of e-Government by building trust. Electron Mark 12(3):157–162. https://doi.org/10.1080/101967802320245929
Weerakkody V, El-haddadeh R, Al-sobhi F, Shareef MA, Dwivedi YK (2013) Examining the influence of intermediaries in facilitating e-Government adoption: an empirical investigation. Int J Inf Manag 33(5):716–725. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2013.05.001
Wolfinbarger M, Gilly MC (2003) eTailQ: dimensionalizing, measuring and predicting etail quality. J Retail 79(3):183–198. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-4359(03)00034-4
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Kumar, R., Mukherjee, A. & Sachan, A. Factors influencing indirect adoption of e-Government services: a qualitative study. Inf Syst E-Bus Manage 21, 471–504 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10257-023-00637-z
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10257-023-00637-z